Welbeck

showed great compsure for his goal. Also thought Oxlade-Chamberlain did well in spells but once again his inexperience showed. Not quite ready to start for England but could make an impact as a sub late on in games. As for the much hyped Hazard - gotta say I was underwhelmed. Nice touches etc but nothing to mark him out as exceptional. But then he could be one of those players who is great in league games but struggles at international level.

Well thats Jim W, obviously his mates on here were saying all that first, Jim changes his views all the time, if his mates on here change their veiw, here comes jimmy.Of course he wont say that Fergie has to go now, he doesnt want to be slagged off by William guy of anyone else.Although Jim probably still thinks Fergie should go.

Where are you Stefan? Welbeck produced the only bit of sheer class in the game. But Hazard, that wonderful talent, he absolutely astonished us.......well actually not, he performed about as well as he always does outside Lille, pretty bloody average.Which player would you rather have? No competition, Danny every time!

You are very predictable Jim. I was fortunate enough to see 4 minutes of the match (33-37) which included Welbeck's excellent goal, and was thus predicting a snarky post. Thereafter, as it *is* a Saturday night, I was out enjoying life, and have only just gotten in. I'm very flattered that you were anxiously awaiting a riposte, but really, surely you have better things to do than sitting behind a computer screen all evening to score cheap points against a stranger on a football message board?

Moving on, from what I've heard from my friends who had been watching the match in the pub, England were dull as dishwater and as awful as ever in possession, while Belgium were far more fluent, yet were playing in a strikerless formation and completely lacked penetration.

It's a shame you're now in the habit of judging players on inconsistent criteria (either exclusively on league form, or international football, depending on what suits your 'arguments'), as well as single matches. Not long ago, during one of your irrational, anti-Barca ('they take drugs!!!!!!!') tirades, you were saying that one could not really laud the Barca players for their achievements in international football which they were at the heart of, because club and international football are too different. Now you're choosing to ignore everything that the 21 and a half year old Hazard has done at club level, and conveniently focussing on his play in a young national side with unstable management.

With regards to a good match Messi had last year in the C.America you stated: 'He made 2 decent passes and he was 'great', give me a break!'. You're now wetting your pants in excitement over a clearly excellent goal by Welbeck, using this as evidence that he is a world-beater, the second coming of 'ZZ', one of the greatest players of all time, who didn't even play in the same position. A good chip doesn't make Danny Welbeck the second coming of Zizou, just as it didn't make Michael Owen the next Gerd Muller or Wayne Rooney the next Ronaldinho Gaucho.

Before you start your nonsense again about how I want Welbeck to fail, perhaps you'll remember that I've been singing his praises all season, while noting that there are clear areas where he can improve, namely not falling over his feet and improving his coordination, which will come when he's fully grown. As for which player I would rather have, given who we already have in our squad (Nani, Valencia, Young), and their respective characters and nationalities, I'd choose Welbeck. Who is the better talent - for most sane and rational observers who are strong enough not to be swayed by club loyalties, given the relative trajectory of their careers so far, and the abilities that both have shown, Hazard would be the clear choice. This may change in time. I don't know the future - unlike you, I'm not a fortune teller and I don't have your special brand of 'knowledge'. I've said my piece now Jim. We disagree. Change the record.